The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds DirectlyFrom The Open And Publicly Available NewsgroupAlt.Politics.Org.FBI

This Group And Thousands Of Others Are AvailableOn Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.

Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any OtherNewsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup AndPosts Are For Informational Purposes Only.

From: Vince Brannigan
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.org.fbi,sci.militar
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
References: Vince Brannigan wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> :
> :> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> :>
> :> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> :> :
> :> :> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> :> :> :
> :> :> :> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :> lparker@NOSPAM.emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> :In article ,
> :> :> :> :> : "Chris" wrote:
> :> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> :>The same liberal media that will take the Bush twins or Noelle Bush and
> :> :> :> :> :>them in the center of town because they have had a couple of beers (in t
> :> :> :> :> :>case of the twins) and do drugs (Noelle) That is front page news and to
> :> :> :> :> :>story fodder for the major outlets. But when its Chelsea Clinton drinki
> :> :> :> :> :>underage to the point she cant walk that isnt even reported.
> :> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :> :Perhaps because it never happened. If it wasn't reported, what makes
> :> :> :> :> :you think it happened?
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> In May there were pictures in the London Daily Mirror and the London
> :> :> :> :> Sun of Chelsea essentially passed out in a bar.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :Im sorry you said "underage" when were these pictures taken? Chelsea Clift
> :> :> :> :born in Feb. 1980 which would make her 22 years old.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> I'm sorry. You need to pay attention to who said what. *I* never
> :> :> :> said she was underage. But one hardly becomes a booze hound
> :> :> :> overnight.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Yes Chris made the original claim but you claimed to provide the documentary pr
> :> :> :the original claim
> :> :>
> :> :> Where did I claim that?
> :> :>
> :> :> :": In May there were pictures in the London Daily Mirror and the
> :> :> :London Sun of Chelsea essentially passed out in a bar" .
> :> :>
> :> :> And THAT was a statement of fact.
> :> :
> :> :that is correct. it is a factual statement you provided to back up the claim of u
> :> :drining. unfortunalty they did not.
> :>
> :> I provided it as support that Chelsea is indeed, apparently, a
> :> 'drinker' and that it got scant coverage in the United States by the
> :> very paper that has made a business out of pursuing the Bush
> :> daughters, which was the real issue.
> :
> :The bush daughters were in violation of the law. The claim was made that Chelsea Cli
> :also in violation of the law i.e. underage drinking.
>
> But not a claim I made. The root claim was that the media is focusing
> on the Bush daughters while ignoring Clinton.
the claim was that clinton was ignored despite unlawful activites
you stepped rigght up to the plate with a cleims
> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :Perhaps because it never happened. If it wasn't reported, what makes
:> :> :> :> :you think it happened?
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> In May there were pictures in the London Daily Mirror and the London
:> :> :> :> Sun of Chelsea essentially passed out in a bar.
I challenged you on the age isue right away.
>
> :you provided a supposed cite to support the claim made by another.
>
> No, I did not.
>
> :it does not support the claim.
>
> It supports the claim I intended it to support.
>
Quote where you staed what it was supporting Or is this a secret intent?
>
> :I pointed that out. you have been abusive in response.
>
> You lied about why I posted it and I have been abusive in return to
> your abuse.
no I pointed out the thread. you now claim a differnt intent.
>
>
> :> :> :That makes it "your" claim.
> :> :>
> :> :> What I 'claimed' was a documented fact.
> :> :
> :> :which you provided to support the claim
> :>
> :> Which I provided to show the bias of American media.
> :
> :except that by supporting a claim of unlawful behavior with a cite that does not show
> :behavior, you not only did nto show the bias of the american media, but the length yo
> :to to manufacture bias.
>
> To your mind. However, I suspect that someone could come up with
> pictures of the Clinton family engaged in a dog and pony show and you
> would still claim it was inadequately documented, somehow.
non sequitur, i fully accept that she was drunk. I dont accept that it is the saem as u
behavior.
> More lies about me do not validate your prior lies about me.
res ipsa loquitur
> :eitehr that or the negligence with with you read the source you cited
>
> Fallacy of the excluded middle. You seem to have a real love for this
> one, Vince. As an attorney, I have to assume that you are taught
> about all the logical fallacies. That means that this is merely
> another deliberate lie on your part.
res ipsa loquitur
>
> :> :> :On an instrument you can sue both the maker and the endorser.
> :> :>
> :> :> And as a lawyer, lies and distortions are apparently your stock in
> :> :> trade.
> :> :
> :> :personal abuse noted
> :>
> :> It's not personal abuse when it's the truth, Vince. You're claiming
> :> facts not in evidence. What would YOU call that?
> :
> :I'm not claiming any facts not in evidence.
>
> Of course you are.
>
> :The trhead is there for the world to read
>
> Yes, it is. And those with your biases will undoubtedly read it your
> way. That's irrelevant to the truth of the matter, which is not as
> you insist it is.
res ipsa lioquitur
>
> :I caught you in a deception and now your are replyin with abuse
>
> No, you lied about my intent in posting the cite and I abused you in
> return.
I said nothign about your subjective intent. I described the thread. nothing aobut your
in my comment. I allow that you could be negligent, which specifically negates andy wron
intent.
> :> :no you offered documentary support for a false assertion.
> :>
> :> No, I offered documentary support for the bias of the US media, which
> :> was the issue.
> :
> :no becsue the claim was that the media ignored unlawful behavior
>
> No, the claim was that the media was biased when it comes to reportage
> of Presidential daughters, in accord with their political views.
but it does nto supprot the lcaim the claim was that unalwful behavior wasignored.
>
> :you provided a cite that purported to support the cliam. it does nto.
>
> It supported the claim I posted it to support. Lie as you like; it
> doesn't change that.
Res ipsa loquitur
> :> At this point you are verging on lying, Vince. I'd suggest you might
> :> want to use some slightly more conditional language when stating
> :> someone else's motivations.
> :
> :the threadis there for anyone to see. I have said that I do not know if you were int
> :or negligent.
>
> Yes, which for someone trained in logical fallacies is just another
> way of lying, since I was neither.
res ipsa loquitur
>
> So, have you stopped beating your wife yet, Vince?
res ipsa loquitur
>
> :> :> :is irelevant to the claim and your failure to include the fact
> :> :> :that she was overage at the time of the incident undercuts your credibility
> :> :>
> :> :> I gave date and time. I also didn't specify what colour her panties
> :> :> were that day. Presumably that also "undercuts my credibility"?
> :> :
> :> :you gave the date and time of a story in support of the claim . they story does n
> :> :support the claim
> :>
> :> I gave the date and time of a story that supported the bias of the US
> :> media, which was the point of the whole discussion.
> :
> :no the claim was unlawful behavior was not reported
>
> No, the claim was that misbehaviour by Presidential children is
> reported in a biased manner, according to the political leanings of
> the press.
res ipsa loquitur
>
>
> :But when its Chelsea Clinton drinking
> ::> :> :> :>underage to the point she cant walk that isnt even reported.
>
> Note that I did not say the preceding. Artful editing. Just another
> form of lying, Vince.
I quoted the claim. I have clearly sais that you did not make the original claim yous t
with support for the claim.
RTFT
> :> :either you knew it in which case you were lying
> :> :or you didint read the sotry, in whcih case you were negligent.
> :>
> :> You're a liar, Vince. Not only that, you're a POOR liar.
> :
res ipsa loquitur
>
> :personal abse noted. Teh thread is therefore all to see
>
> Yes, it is. As are your attempts to distort events.
>
res ipsa loquitur
>
> :> :> :Case dismissed
> :> :>
> :> :> I don't recall you being the judge, although I'm sure that's your
> :> :> preference. I also don't recall bringing a 'case'. I related a FACT.
> :> :> Sorry that such simple concepts are apparently too much for you.
> :> :
> :> :your related the fact as if it suported the claim. it doesnt
> :>
> :> I related the fact as it supported the claim of US media bias, as
> :> evidenced by the scant coverage Chelsea falling down drunk got in this
> :> country (to the extent that you weren't even aware of it, apparently).
> :>
> :> :appeal dismissed
> :>
> :> I've never found your variety of liar particularly appealing, Vince.
> :
> :perosnal abuse noted. attempt to change the basis for the claim noted,
>
> Color of the sky on your planet noted.
>
res ipsa loquitur
> :permission to amedn the claim deined for lack of foundation . the word underage was
> :highlighted in the first respone. Since clarificaiton could have been made at that t
> :attemtop to change the basis is untiel and dismissed.
>
> Still lying. Let me clear it up for you, Vince. Just a couple of
> facts OBVIOUS to anyone but you, apparently.
>
> 1) The date of this particular story was recent and says nothing about
> being underage; just about being falling down drunk in public. I
> consider that to be rather 'misconduct' of an order somewhat beyond
> having a beer underage.
Is there any suggestion that it was unlawful? who says it is misconduct? Partculalry wh
the media report it? .
> 2) The location of the story was Britain. I have no idea if Britain
> even HAS a legal drinking age, much less what it is. Therefore, it is
> an immense stretch, to the point of being an outright lie, for you to
> be making EITHER of the claims you keep trying to press. The story
> was about being falling down drunk in public. I consider that to be
> rather 'misconduct' of an order somewhat beyond having a beer
> underage.
you do, but you only say that now if you read the thread you see where you inserted this
> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :Perhaps because it never happened. If it wasn't reported, what makes
:> :> :> :> :you think it happened?
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> In May there were pictures in the London Daily Mirror and the London
:> :> :> :> Sun of Chelsea essentially passed out in a bar.
so your comment was indirect reply to a statment that the underage drinking claim was un
now afeter the fact you make the claim of a totally separate subjective intent. NO that
fly
>
> 3) Practically all college students drink, Vince, underage or not.
> This wasn't news when the Post made a crusade out of chasing the Bush
> girls and it's hardly news if Chelsea drinks, either. It would be
> much more of a story if one of them was falling down drunk and having
> to be carried by her four male companions - and going out and getting
> totally wasted with four men is not exactly bright behaviour in any
> case, even if it wasn't 'news'. That was actually the case with one
> of the three girls. That was also the case that was not reported by
> the same paper making a crusade of chasing the Bush daughters.
Except that it was not unlawful behavior. perhaps if you had made this statemnt at the
might have helpd but you didn't
>
> I'd say that you ought to be able to figure it out from here, except I
> must remember that I'm talking to a man who thinks the warning to
> remove the sun screen from your window before driving is important and
> saving lives even as we speak.
no its required.
>
> Bottom line is that you're a liar, Vince. It's deliberate and
> repeated. If this is any indication of your ethics, it is probably
> better that you teach than that you actually practice law.
File a complaint under oath with the Maryland Court of Appeals. they will investigate.
if they find that the complant was made in bad faith or for the purpose of harrassment.
the right to find you in Contempt.
Feel free to fiel an ethics complaint
Vince Brannigan